Hardeep Singh Banga VS State of U.P

The court session commenced with the presentation of arguments by the respective counsels of the involved parties, followed by a thorough examination of the case records. The matter at hand pertained to an application for anticipatory bail filed by individuals including Hardeep Singh Banga, Gambhir Singh Banga, Satinder Singh Banga, Amitbir Singh, Harbir Singh Banga, Neeraj Bajaj, and Pramod Kathuria. These applicants sought anticipatory bail in response to summons dated 25.3.2021, 26.3.2021, 30.3.2021, and 9.4.2021 issued by the Opposite Party No.5-Senior Intelligence Officer GST Intelligence, Zonal Unit Ghaziabad, under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (referred to as the “GST Act”). These summonses were issued amidst ongoing proceedings or inquiries before the respondents.

The crux of the argument presented by the learned counsel for the applicants revolved around Section 70 of the GST Act, which empowers the proper officer to summon an individual whose presence is deemed necessary for providing testimony or producing documents or any other relevant materials during an inquiry. It was contended that this provision grants the proper officer powers akin to those of a civil court concerning the summoning process.

The applicants sought anticipatory bail in light of these summonses, presumably to safeguard themselves from potential arrest or detention pending the conclusion of the inquiry. This legal maneuver was likely initiated to secure their liberty and ensure their continued participation in the ongoing proceedings without fear of coercive actions by the authorities.

The intricacies of the case, including the nature of the inquiry and the specific allegations against the applicants, were not explicitly detailed in the summary provided. However, it can be inferred that the applicants found themselves embroiled in a legal dispute related to GST matters, prompting the issuance of summonses by the concerned authorities.

In essence, the summary encapsulates the legal proceedings wherein the applicants, facing summonses under the GST Act, sought anticipatory bail as a preemptive measure to protect their rights and liberty during the course of the ongoing inquiry. The interpretation and application of Section 70 of the GST Act emerged as a focal point of the arguments presented before the court.

The case at hand involves an application for anticipatory bail filed by Hardeep Singh Banga, Gambhir Singh Banga, Satinder Singh Banga, Amitbir Singh, Harbir Singh Banga, Neeraj Bajaj, and Pramod Kathuria. This application is in response to summons issued by the Senior Intelligence Officer of GST Intelligence, Zonal Unit Ghaziabad, under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (referred to as the “GST Act”). These summonses were issued during the ongoing proceedings before the respondents.

The applicants’ counsel argues that under Section 70 of the GST Act, the proper officer has the authority to summon individuals deemed necessary for an inquiry, akin to procedures outlined in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Furthermore, it is stated that these inquiries are considered “judicial proceedings” under the Indian Penal Code. The applicants express apprehension that attending these summons may lead to their detention and subsequent incarceration, citing provisions under Section 41(A) of the Criminal Procedure Code. They maintain their willingness to cooperate with the inquiry but fear arrest due to the seriousness of the allegations and the potential five-year imprisonment penalty under Section 132(1)(b) of the GST Act.

The applicants assert that they have been falsely implicated due to business rivalry and deny any involvement in the alleged possession of bogus invoices. They pledge to provide reliable sureties if granted anticipatory bail, as directed by the court, and emphasize their ongoing cooperation with the inquiry initiated by DGGSTI, Ghaziabad Unit. As of now, there has been no indication from the respondents that the applicants have failed to provide necessary cooperation.

The case at hand involves an application for anticipatory bail filed by several individuals – Hardeep Singh Banga, Gambhir Singh Banga, Satinder Singh Banga, Amitbir Singh, Harbir Singh Banga, Neeraj Bajaj, and Pramod Kathuria. They seek protection from arrest in relation to summons issued by the Senior Intelligence Officer of GST Intelligence, Zonal Unit Ghaziabad, under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (GST Act). These summons are linked to ongoing proceedings/inquiry before the respondents.

The applicants argue that under Section 70 of the GST Act, the proper officer has the authority to summon individuals for inquiry, similar to procedures under the Civil Procedure Code. They contend that the inquiries are deemed “judicial proceedings” under the Indian Penal Code. However, they fear detention and imprisonment if they comply with the summons. They assert that their apprehension falls under Section 41(A) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

The maximum punishment under the relevant section of the GST Act is 5 years, and the applicants fear arrest despite their willingness to cooperate with the inquiry. They claim to have been falsely implicated due to business rivalry, specifically regarding allegations of possessing bogus invoices.

The applicants stress their cooperation with the inquiry thus far, providing documents and communicating via video conferencing as required. They highlight compliance with interim orders and report no adverse actions by the respondents. They emphasize their international business engagements, necessitating travel abroad, and express readiness to pay a substantial indemnity bond to secure the alleged amount owed to the GST Department.

In support of their application, the applicants cite a Karnataka High Court judgment stating that offenses under the GST Act are not punishable by death or life imprisonment, hence there’s no statutory bar against granting anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. They also refer to a Punjab and Haryana High Court decision granting anticipatory bail in a similar case.

The case under consideration involves an application for anticipatory bail filed by several individuals, including Hardeep Singh Banga, Gambhir Singh Banga, Satinder Singh Banga, Amitbir Singh, Harbir Singh Banga, Neeraj Bajaj, and Pramod Kathuria. They seek anticipatory bail concerning summonses issued by the Senior Intelligence Officer of GST Intelligence, Zonal Unit Ghaziabad, under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (GST Act), during ongoing proceedings/inquiries.

The applicants argue that under Section 70 of the GST Act, the proper officer possesses the authority to summon individuals for inquiry, akin to a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. They express apprehension about potential detention and arrest when complying with the summonses, citing Section 41(A) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The maximum punishment under Section 132(1)(b) of the GST Act is five years’ imprisonment. Despite their willingness to cooperate with the inquiry, they fear arrest and imprisonment.

The applicants highlight their cooperation with the investigation initiated by the DGGSTI, Ghaziabad Unit, asserting that they have provided required documents and maintained communication through video conferencing. They emphasize compliance with interim orders and refute any adverse reports from the respondents. Given their global business operations and contractual obligations necessitating international travel, they argue for anticipatory bail.

Moreover, they propose furnishing an indemnity bond of Rs. 27 crore to secure the apprehended amount. Legal precedents are cited, including a Karnataka High Court judgment indicating no statutory bar for granting anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in GST-related offenses. Additionally, judgments from the Punjab and Haryana High Court are referenced, illustrating instances where anticipatory bail was allowed, and inquiry continued without custodial arrest.

Regarding the present case, the GST department conducted a visit to the applicants’ premises and discovered documents related to M/s Maiden Foreign Private Limited, a manufacturer of iron and steel products. This firm supplies raw materials to companies belonging to the applicants. Allegations of tax evasion amounting to Rs. 27 crore are under inquiry. The applicants maintain cooperation by submitting requested documents and data to the GST Department, adhering to interim directions.

In essence, the applicants seek anticipatory bail to avoid potential arrest and imprisonment while continuing cooperation with the ongoing investigation into alleged tax evasion. They assert their innocence and readiness to comply with legal proceedings, highlighting their global business commitments and previous cooperation with the authorities.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case law: